Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Is the world overpopulated?

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 5:31:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a common argument for pro abortionists so I will defeat it.

In fact, in 1994, the United Nations Population Fund acknowledged that the world can feed itself in its report that concluded that "[food] production should be sufficient to meet all needs for the foreseeable future..." [1]

"Africa is the least populated of all the continents and has the ability to feed the entire world two times over...The good news for the people of Africa is that they need not suffer in poverty any longer. The solution is simple: free the people to produce; allow the people to keep what they produce; and the people will produce." [2]

Yeah even if all of the continents lost food Africa would save the day.

The world, indeed, has a lot of people. By the end of 2011, there will be nearly 7 billion people living on the planet. But population growth rates will not sustain at those levels. An analysis by The Economist describes how each subsequent billion will take longer and longer to achieve, until population growth eventually plateaus at around 9 billion people by 2050. [3]

So our growth will stop.

A 2003 assessment by the United Nations concurs. The UN projects, under its medium-growth scenario, that the human population will remain relatively stable at 9 billion until the year 2300. [3]

Finally where the UN and I agree

When the world becomes a more prosperous place, the "problem" of population growth will largely take care of itself. [3]

To put it more graphically, you could fit all of the people in the world in the United States and still leave the states of:

Oregon (97,132 sq mi)
New York (53,989 sq mi)
Colorado (104,100 sq mi)
Minnesota (86,943 sq mi)
Florida (59,928 sq mi)
Missouri (69,709 sq mi)
Wyoming (97,818 sq mi)
Rhode Island (1,231 sq mi) [4]

Yeah if we can fit everyone into Rhode island we are ok.

There are 2,967,909 sq miles in Australia (according to wikipedia). There is 640 acres in each sq mile which equates to 1,899,461,760 acres (about 1.9 billion acres). If you subdivide those acres into quarter acres you get 7,597,847,040 (7.6 billion). That means you could give a quarter acre lot to every man, woman and child on the entire planet. [5]

I find that interesting, although it is not a lot of land if we all moved to australia (all 7 billion of us) we would get enough space to live.

Also Australia is the smallest continent. Asia is 17,139,445 sq/mi and Africa is 11,677,239 sq/mi. When you take the amount of habitable land in the world (52,000,000 sq/mi) and divide that by population you'll be able to give everyone 125 square miles of land each. [5]

So in all livable land everyone right now gets 125 square miles. wow.

"The world is NOT over-populated. More than 97% of the land surface on Earth is empty.... Yes, certain cities are over-populated, of course. Yet the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Arkansas. So, then, how is the world 'over-populated'? Europe and Japan will be facing under-population crises in the coming decades, even according to UN studies on population." -- Anthony C. LoBaido [6]

World population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40% of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to 1.5 in 1990-95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960-65 to 1.70 in 1990-95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 -- that is, effectively zero -- in 1990-95.And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2% in 1965-70 to less than 1.5% in 1990-95. [6]

yes population is shrinking.

yeah I am tired of this. Any questions?

Sunday Times Business Times, "Too many people, so few resources", by Bronwen Maddox. 28 August 1994, p5 [1]

Ibid, p70 [2]

http://www.realclearscience.com... [3]

http://www.firstgen.org... [4]

http://www.city-data.com... [5]

http://www.agricultureinformation.com... [6]
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 5:44:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
not popular ok
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:34:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The notion that the world is overpopulated is a Malthusian theory that never stood up to scrutiny. People simply congregate together for ease of convenience, making their immediate living areas crowded.

While it's true that the population curve grows exponentially at a fairly static rate, it has to account for famines, wars, pestilence, natural disasters, etc, that curb human population.

The Bubonic Plague, for instance, wiped out like a third of Europe in one felled swoop. Events like these occur fairly often, in the grand scheme of things, keeping populations in check.

However, there still needs to be land set aside for untouched forests and farmland. Just because you can physically fit millions of more people on the land doesn't account for their need to grow sustenance.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:49:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:34:34 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The notion that the world is overpopulated is a Malthusian theory that never stood up to scrutiny. People simply congregate together for ease of convenience, making their immediate living areas crowded.

While it's true that the population curve grows exponentially at a fairly static rate, it has to account for famines, wars, pestilence, natural disasters, etc, that curb human population.

The Bubonic Plague, for instance, wiped out like a third of Europe in one felled swoop. Events like these occur fairly often, in the grand scheme of things, keeping populations in check.

However, there still needs to be land set aside for untouched forests and farmland. Just because you can physically fit millions of more people on the land doesn't account for their need to grow sustenance.

I don't think that's correct. The amount of people getting killed by what you speak of does not counter the amount of people still living and amount of people born per day. With modern medicine and technology, the world population is at an all time high, and is probably following the path of an exponential graph. I did a debate on this: http://www.debate.org...

and even then, we have the laws of population dynamics that would support the notion that the world is becoming over crowded. The set prediction for the human population is an increase, peak, then a sharp decline from insufficient resources, and then stabilization.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:53:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 5:31:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:
This is a common argument for pro abortionists so I will defeat it.

I've never heard anyone use overpopulation as a pro-choice argument. That seems to miss the mark entirely. If you are referencing specific debates, I'd appreciate it if you sent the links my way.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:39:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:53:30 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/1/2012 5:31:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:
This is a common argument for pro abortionists so I will defeat it.

I've never heard anyone use overpopulation as a pro-choice argument. That seems to miss the mark entirely. If you are referencing specific debates, I'd appreciate it if you sent the links my way.

Not on this debate site but in my school, and it is pretty common
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:40:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:34:34 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The notion that the world is overpopulated is a Malthusian theory that never stood up to scrutiny. People simply congregate together for ease of convenience, making their immediate living areas crowded.

While it's true that the population curve grows exponentially at a fairly static rate, it has to account for famines, wars, pestilence, natural disasters, etc, that curb human population.

The Bubonic Plague, for instance, wiped out like a third of Europe in one felled swoop. Events like these occur fairly often, in the grand scheme of things, keeping populations in check.

However, there still needs to be land set aside for untouched forests and farmland. Just because you can physically fit millions of more people on the land doesn't account for their need to grow sustenance.

agreed, but this is just saying if we have to we can
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:43:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The set prediction for the human population is an increase, peak, then a sharp decline from insufficient resources, and then stabilization.:

That's been the theory since the 1700's, and yet here we still are, with no immediate concerns. It's just more "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" rhetoric.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:46:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe I read somewhere that the world's population will actually stabilize at around 10 billion--which, at the rate we're going, we probably won't reach until around 2080.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:09:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 7:43:17 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The set prediction for the human population is an increase, peak, then a sharp decline from insufficient resources, and then stabilization.:

That's been the theory since the 1700's, and yet here we still are, with no immediate concerns. It's just more "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" rhetoric.

Who's asking you to worry, theres nothing to worry about, just don't try and deny the fact that the population is growing and will continue to grow until we reach an inhabitable maximum, and people die and the population stabilizes, thats all. You speak as if the theory is wrong.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:14:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:09:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 7:43:17 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The set prediction for the human population is an increase, peak, then a sharp decline from insufficient resources, and then stabilization.:

That's been the theory since the 1700's, and yet here we still are, with no immediate concerns. It's just more "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" rhetoric.

Who's asking you to worry, theres nothing to worry about, just don't try and deny the fact that the population is growing and will continue to grow until we reach an inhabitable maximum, and people die and the population stabilizes, thats all. You speak as if the theory is wrong.

There is no inevitable human maximum. When we run out of space of land, we will build cities in the air and underwater. When we run out of room there, we will colonize space. It's not known whether the universe will have an ending, but the human maximum is unlimited.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:18:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:14:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:09:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 7:43:17 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The set prediction for the human population is an increase, peak, then a sharp decline from insufficient resources, and then stabilization.:

That's been the theory since the 1700's, and yet here we still are, with no immediate concerns. It's just more "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" rhetoric.

Who's asking you to worry, theres nothing to worry about, just don't try and deny the fact that the population is growing and will continue to grow until we reach an inhabitable maximum, and people die and the population stabilizes, thats all. You speak as if the theory is wrong.

There is no inevitable human maximum. When we run out of space of land, we will build cities in the air and underwater. When we run out of room there, we will colonize space. It's not known whether the universe will have an ending, but the human maximum is unlimited.

Natural resources exist on Earth and Earth alone, there is a limited amount of food that can be produced at once, a limited amount of air, a limited amount of water, a limited amount of the materials that would construct said sky and water cities. The population will supersede the Earth's carrying capacity.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:33:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:18:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:14:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:09:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 7:43:17 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The set prediction for the human population is an increase, peak, then a sharp decline from insufficient resources, and then stabilization.:

That's been the theory since the 1700's, and yet here we still are, with no immediate concerns. It's just more "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" rhetoric.

Who's asking you to worry, theres nothing to worry about, just don't try and deny the fact that the population is growing and will continue to grow until we reach an inhabitable maximum, and people die and the population stabilizes, thats all. You speak as if the theory is wrong.

There is no inevitable human maximum. When we run out of space of land, we will build cities in the air and underwater. When we run out of room there, we will colonize space. It's not known whether the universe will have an ending, but the human maximum is unlimited.

Natural resources exist on Earth and Earth alone, there is a limited amount of food that can be produced at once, a limited amount of air, a limited amount of water, a limited amount of the materials that would construct said sky and water cities. The population will supersede the Earth's carrying capacity.

Actually, only one of those, which is water, has a real maximum. The rest can be generated, or there is so much of it that its not even worth mentioning. As for water, if we somehow did run out of it, whose to say that there isn't water on another planet?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:41:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:18:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:14:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:09:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 7:43:17 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The set prediction for the human population is an increase, peak, then a sharp decline from insufficient resources, and then stabilization.:

That's been the theory since the 1700's, and yet here we still are, with no immediate concerns. It's just more "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" rhetoric.

Who's asking you to worry, theres nothing to worry about, just don't try and deny the fact that the population is growing and will continue to grow until we reach an inhabitable maximum, and people die and the population stabilizes, thats all. You speak as if the theory is wrong.

There is no inevitable human maximum. When we run out of space of land, we will build cities in the air and underwater. When we run out of room there, we will colonize space. It's not known whether the universe will have an ending, but the human maximum is unlimited.

Natural resources exist on Earth and Earth alone, there is a limited amount of food that can be produced at once, a limited amount of air, a limited amount of water, a limited amount of the materials that would construct said sky and water cities. The population will supersede the Earth's carrying capacity.

Air can be extracted from other planets.
With the invention of new genetic modification, the Earth's capacity for growing food will be almost endless. In case there isn't enough, inhabitation of other planets is plausible.
Water is highly unlikely to run out. Approximately 2.59% of water is fresh. This 2.59% can support 7 billion people and growing. By the time we get to 280 billion people in the world, we will be inhabiting the farthest corners of space.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:47:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:41:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:18:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:14:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:09:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 7:43:17 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The set prediction for the human population is an increase, peak, then a sharp decline from insufficient resources, and then stabilization.:

That's been the theory since the 1700's, and yet here we still are, with no immediate concerns. It's just more "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" rhetoric.

Who's asking you to worry, theres nothing to worry about, just don't try and deny the fact that the population is growing and will continue to grow until we reach an inhabitable maximum, and people die and the population stabilizes, thats all. You speak as if the theory is wrong.

There is no inevitable human maximum. When we run out of space of land, we will build cities in the air and underwater. When we run out of room there, we will colonize space. It's not known whether the universe will have an ending, but the human maximum is unlimited.

Natural resources exist on Earth and Earth alone, there is a limited amount of food that can be produced at once, a limited amount of air, a limited amount of water, a limited amount of the materials that would construct said sky and water cities. The population will supersede the Earth's carrying capacity.

Air can be extracted from other planets.
With the invention of new genetic modification, the Earth's capacity for growing food will be almost endless. In case there isn't enough, inhabitation of other planets is plausible.
Water is highly unlikely to run out. Approximately 2.59% of water is fresh. This 2.59% can support 7 billion people and growing. By the time we get to 280 billion people in the world, we will be inhabiting the farthest corners of space.

Not to mention we still have all the oceans, and seas still, that can be de-salted.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:48:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:33:30 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:18:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:14:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:09:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 7:43:17 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The set prediction for the human population is an increase, peak, then a sharp decline from insufficient resources, and then stabilization.:

That's been the theory since the 1700's, and yet here we still are, with no immediate concerns. It's just more "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" rhetoric.

Who's asking you to worry, theres nothing to worry about, just don't try and deny the fact that the population is growing and will continue to grow until we reach an inhabitable maximum, and people die and the population stabilizes, thats all. You speak as if the theory is wrong.

There is no inevitable human maximum. When we run out of space of land, we will build cities in the air and underwater. When we run out of room there, we will colonize space. It's not known whether the universe will have an ending, but the human maximum is unlimited.

Natural resources exist on Earth and Earth alone, there is a limited amount of food that can be produced at once, a limited amount of air, a limited amount of water, a limited amount of the materials that would construct said sky and water cities. The population will supersede the Earth's carrying capacity.

Actually, only one of those, which is water, has a real maximum. The rest can be generated, or there is so much of it that its not even worth mentioning. As for water, if we somehow did run out of it, whose to say that there isn't water on another planet?

lol you make it sound like its so simple. No, food cannot just be generated from nothing, you need resources to generate food. Resources are limited and you're honestly kidding yourself if you think theres so much that its not even worth mentioning. We need pure water, only 3% of the water on earth is drinkable and purifiable,...only 1% of the water on Earth is accessible. What on earth makes you think extraterrestrial water is accessible much less purifiable? lol
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:49:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:47:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:

Not to mention we still have all the oceans, and seas still, that can be de-salted.

lmao You do realize that it costs about 1 million USD to purify one glass of ocean water right?...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:50:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:49:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:47:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:

Not to mention we still have all the oceans, and seas still, that can be de-salted.

lmao You do realize that it costs about 1 million USD to purify one glass of ocean water right?...

And........
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:53:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:50:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:49:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:47:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:

Not to mention we still have all the oceans, and seas still, that can be de-salted.

lmao You do realize that it costs about 1 million USD to purify one glass of ocean water right?...

And........

...and I think you've just earned the award for most callow response of the millenium.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:57:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:53:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:50:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:49:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:47:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:

Not to mention we still have all the oceans, and seas still, that can be de-salted.

lmao You do realize that it costs about 1 million USD to purify one glass of ocean water right?...

And........

...and I think you've just earned the award for most callow response of the millenium.

Well, that's callow. Do you think that makes you above me when you use a word that could just be replaced with, say, immature?

My point is that why does it matter the cost? We still have those resources, and therefore, we are not at risk of overpopulation. Next!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:04:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 7:46:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe I read somewhere that the world's population will actually stabilize at around 10 billion--which, at the rate we're going, we probably won't reach until around 2080.

my sources said 9 and around 2070
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:04:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I mean 2050
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:06:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:49:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:47:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:

Not to mention we still have all the oceans, and seas still, that can be de-salted.

lmao You do realize that it costs about 1 million USD to purify one glass of ocean water right?...

Where the fvck do you get your statistics from? Desalination costs about 5-7 times the amount of extracting fresh water. So unless extracting fresh water costs $200 000 per glass, you are highly mistaken.
Also, by the time that we need desalinated water, desalination processes will be readily and cheaply available.
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:08:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:50:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:49:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:47:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:

Not to mention we still have all the oceans, and seas still, that can be de-salted.

lmao You do realize that it costs about 1 million USD to purify one glass of ocean water right?...

And........

Sorry nevermind, the real figure is about $0.50 per cubic meter to desalinate ocean water. I could have sworn someone told me one million. :/

Well, that argument's dropped.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:10:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:06:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:49:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:47:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:

Not to mention we still have all the oceans, and seas still, that can be de-salted.

lmao You do realize that it costs about 1 million USD to purify one glass of ocean water right?...

Where the fvck do you get your statistics from? Desalination costs about 5-7 times the amount of extracting fresh water. So unless extracting fresh water costs $200 000 per glass, you are highly mistaken.
Also, by the time that we need desalinated water, desalination processes will be readily and cheaply available.
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...

I know. -_-
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:13:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Who's asking you to worry, theres nothing to worry about, just don't try and deny the fact that the population is growing and will continue to grow until we reach an inhabitable maximum, and people die and the population stabilizes, thats all. You speak as if the theory is wrong.:

But isn't that the point I was making -- that people will die en masse, thus stabilizing populations?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:37:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People have been around for a longgggg time and 100 years ago they thought cars were the coolest thing ever, look how far we've come in just 100 years. In just 250 years since the industrial revolution look what we've accomplished.

We're ingenuitious, we're smart, we're adaptable and we're not going anywhere.